WillTravel

Do you prefer staying in chain hotels or independent hotels?

Which do you prefer overall, or does it really just depend? I'm considering the issue for Paris in particular, but would be interested in general or specific comments for anywhere.

Standard pros of chain hotels:
A consistent product (one hopes)
Opportunity to collect points (in some cases)
Might be more access to multilingual staff, etc.
Possibly safer

Standard cons of chain hotels:
Bland consistency (sort of like going to a chain restaurant)

Standard pros of independent hotels:
More interaction with the locals (maybe)
More local charm in the rooms and building

Standard cons of independent hotels:
Quirky staff
Impossible to remedy a bad situation
Old, dumpy buildings in need of renovation

I think virtually all of my travel so far has involved either hostels or chain hotels (with a few exceptions). And I've had almost entirely positive experiences at dozens of places so far (keeping in mind the standard of quality that I could reasonably expect for the price). But I was just curious as to people's experiences of the differences between chain and independent properties.

Iregeo

Hi WillTravel. Great question. I usually prefer independent properties, because I enjoy small, intimate places with local character. Also, although I may be mistaken, I assume that chains in Europe are similar to chains in the U.S. Therefore, I prefer to experience something there that I might not find here. I have, on occassion, stayed in chains (Intercontinental in Paris and Holiday Inn near CDG) with great success, but it's not my preference.

m_kingdom

It is very unusual to find a luxury property that is not affiliated to some chain. Even seemingly independent hotels are linked to organisations such as "Leading Hotels Of The World". Others are under a brand such as the Luxury Collection, which merely have Starwood as the management firm of the property. I can't think of one fine hotel that is not associated to an international marketing company which acts as a brand. Hilton are a global brand which usually employs total ownership rather than just property management and as a result are faceless and I would never ever consider an Hilton for an holiday.

RufusTFirefly

We prefer small, independent pensions, B&Bs, hotels. We do a lot of research before picking a place to stay. The only bad experience with a small independent we've had in the past few years was in Munich. We've had more bad experiences with chains. But, again, we do a lot of research before picking a place.

Christina

I think there are some wrong assumptions above, and it depends what your definition of a "chain" is.

I choose my hotel based on what I know about it, location, reviews, etc -- whether it is a chain or not is completely irrelevant. Some of my favorite hotels in various cities belong to what most people are calling a "chain" (which usually just means a hotel marketing consortium, not that any company owns them) -- some examples are the Hotel Elefant in Salzburg (BW) and the Hotel Maximilian in Prague (Golden Tulip) and Millennium Bailey's in London.

Some of the things that are wrong is that a lot of chain hotels are not large and they aren't alike and have just as much charm as any independent because they are exactly the same kind of hotel -- small and locally-run.

I don't agree with hardly any of your list, WillTravel. Grumpiness of staff and/or quirkiness and dumpy buildings has nothing to do with being in a chain or not IMO. Also, Irego is assuming because of something in the US (which isn't completely true here). Being in a chain does not mean they aren't local in character and/or large. I've also stayed in Libertels in France and they do a very good job and they are just as small and local as many indpendent hotels (they should be local, as they are a French chain). I've also stayed in Logis de France which are small and local and full of character just as much as any hotel, because they are the same -- it's just a marketing group.

I just think there isn't much of anything you can assume from the term "chain" unless it's a brand you know and know exactly what that means in other countries.

WillTravel

Sorry Christina for being unclear - I meant in my first post that those are stereotypes I have heard, not that they are necessarily true.

Iregeo

Christina, please note that I clarified my remark by saying that it is an assumption and that I may be wrong. I made this comment because, despite my own experiences in Europe with Intercontinental and Holiday Inn, I recall raeding a thread about a Best Western in Venice (Ala?) that is nothing like Best Westerns in this country. I personally found the chains, although nice hotels, to lack the local character and charm of smaller, independent properties.

WillTravel

At least a few guidebooks seem to have a standard line that chain hotels aren't as "authentic" somehow as independent hotels, but I find the premise dubious. That was one reason I made the post.

RufusTFirefly

There is a difference between a real chain and a marketing group. We prefer independents over a real chain hotel.

Patty

I don't think it matters. There are lots of chain properties that aren't at all bland (many European Starwoods come to mind), just as being an independent doesn't guarantee charm or authenticity. Decisions should be based on individual property reviews.

RufusTFirefly

As I said, you have to do a lot of research.

Patrick

I've stayed in a number of Best Westerns in Europe, and they are not a chain. All are totally independent hotels that happen to pay a fee to use Best Western for marketing purposes. Some are nice, some not so great, but they are no different than any other independent hotel.

Last year, when I found a fantastic rate at the beautiful new LeMeridien in Munich, I decided to stay there, although normally I'd stay in a three star "charm" hotel. I must say, it was a delight. As I get older and more traveled, I'm starting to think that sometimes downright luxury -- wonderful beds, top notch furnishings, well trained staff, spotless housekeeping, the latest electronics in the room, etc -- really does do more for me than "charm" which often means suffering through the worn beds, the threadbare draperies, the rust spots in the shower, etc.

Lexma90

I've never stayed in a chain hotel in Europe, so I can't give an opinion on them, but I do like being able to stay at a hotel that I perceive, at least, as being more individual and having more character of the country/region I'm staying in. That being said, I do LOTS of research, and pretty much never stay (any more) at a place that doesn't have pictures of their rooms on a website (not that they're infallible).

We have stayed at places that are part of a marketing group, and I guess I would say that I'd think that if one hotel in the group is good, I'd tend to think they all would be.

BTilke

Because I have an Accor privileged guest card, which gives me points and good rates, I usually stay in Accor hotels in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. Accor may be a chain, but there are always differences within the chain. The Novotels and Ibis, for example, are the most uniform in look and feel. The Mercures are often older, individual hotels in town centers, so there is a variety in how they look and feel. The Sofitels are the highest end of the Accor chain. Some of them are mansion hotels (like the Le Parc in Paris where we stayed two weeks ago). Some are ultramodern, like the Sofitel in Chicago.
Re quality of service, I have to say I have received *almost* uniformly good service across the Accor brand, from their lowest end, the Formule 1 (in the Netherlands, where we spent a few days in 2002) to the Sofitel in Paris where we stayed last week. One of the most gracious welcomes we have received from a hotel came from the Mercure Angers Centre in the Loire Valley. I have had only one negative experience with an Accor hotel--the front desk personnel at the Ibis in Chartres. On the other hand, the front desk people at the Ibis hotel in the suburbs of Utrecht were efficient, helpful and had a good sense of humor.
One thing I like about a chain is that the hotels are expected to meet that chain's standards of cleanliness, etc., which is usually a good thing (unless, of course, you're talking about Days Inns, but that's another thread...)

Melnq8

I only stay in "chain" hotels when needing a day room between flights or an overnight stay near an airport prior to the next day's flight.

I much prefer small, independently owned establishments. Usually 3 star places that no travel agent has ever
heard of (not that I'd use a travel agent to book hotels anyway).

I've found that family owned establishments are usually friendly and accommodating. They also tend to feel "more local" and have more atmosphere than I associate with chains.

I have run into a few losers though.

WillTravel

This thread is somewhat related:

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34430821